Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - 09/11/2013MINUTES
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
BY: 2-- September 11, 2013
PRESENT:
R. C. Taylor, Chairman
♦ Members
Jeff Browning
John Harmon
John Kidwell
Karla Metty
Vicky Payne
James Wingo
Kinley Hegglund, Senior City Attorney ♦ Legal Depart.
Karen Gagne, Planning Administrator ♦City Staff
Monique Coleman, Planner II
Leo Mantey, Planner I
Eric Kozielski, Planning Technician
Diane Parker
ABSENT:
Mary Ward ♦ Council Liaison
Rick Graham ♦ Alternate #1
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Taylor at 2:00 p.m. Chairman Taylor then
proceeded to make the following comments:
a. This meeting is being broadcast live on Channel 11. It will be replayed at 2:00 p.m.
daily including Saturday and Sunday until the next live meeting is aired which will be the second
Wednesday of next month at 2:00 p.m.
b. Motions made by the Commission members include all staff recommendations and
developmental requirements listed in the staff report. Any deviations will be discussed on a
case -by -case basis and voted on accordingly.
c. Applicants and citizens who wish to address the Commission or answer questions
from the Commission members are asked to please speak into the microphone at the podium.
This meeting is being taped and there is no microphone to record statements made from the
audience.
d. Please silence all cell phone ringers during the meeting. If it is necessary for you to
have a cell phone conversation during the meeting, please use the hallway outside this room.
P & Z COMMISSION PAGE 2 SEPTEMBER 11, 2013
II. PUBLIC COMMENTS
No one from the audience wished to address the Commission.
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Ms. Payne made a motion to approve the minutes of the August 14, 2013 meeting. Ms. Metty
seconded the motion. The minutes were approved with a unanimous vote.
IV. CONSENT AGENDA
PRELIMINARY PLATS
The Planning & Zoning Commission recommended approval of the following plats subject to the
Standard Conditions of Approval for Preliminary Plats and any specific conditions listed:
Standard Conditions of Approval for Preliminary Plats
■ Provide utility and drainage easements as required by utility companies and the Director
of Public Works.
■ Submit sewer, street, sidewalk and drainage plans to the Director of Public Works and
water plans to both the Fire Marshall and the Director of Public Works. Drainage plans
must be complete enough to include impact on surrounding property and include
detention facilities as required by Director of Public Works.
■ Coordinate street lighting plan and provide utility easements as required by the Director
of Traffic and Transportation.
■ Submit two (2) copies of corrected preliminary plat to Planning Division before final
platting.
Note: Approval of a plat does not imply development of property in violation of the
Zoning Ordinance.
1. Miller Heights Addition, Lots 1 -8, Block 1 (September 2013)
a. Site is not served by public sewer; approved on -site septic system is required. (Public
Works)
b. Extension of existing 8 -in. water line westerly across Lots 1 -7 frontage is required.
(Public Works)
c. Please correct spelling of Kiel Lane. (Public Works)
d. Please add a vicinity map to the plat. (Public Works /Planning)
e. Engineering would still like to discuss right -of -way establishment with surveyor. (Public
Works)
f. Per Section 4.3 J of the Subdivision and Development Regulations (S &DRs) show
topographical contour lines at two (2) foot intervals. (Planning)
g. Indicate the subdivision boundaries with heavy /bold lines. (Planning)
P & Z COMMISSION PAGE 3 SEPTEMBER 11, 2013
h. The plat is barely legible. Please utilize as much blank space as possible (reduce the
scale if possible) to expand the plat so Kiel Lane right -of -way is legible with contour and
easement overlays. (Planning)
i. Please indicate 15.13ft. of right -of -way as "proposed to be dedicated ". Right -of -way
cannot be dedicated on a preliminary plat since prelim. plats are not filed with the
County Clerk's Office. (Planning)
j. The Planning Office will address each parcel once the plat is approved. (Planning)
2. Fountain Park, Section 8D, Lots 9, 10, & 11, Block 63 and Lot 3, Block 62 (September
2013)
a. The site is served by public sewer and water; extensions of sewer and water down
Maplewood Avenue, may be required. (Public Works)
b. Show proposed 20ft. utility easement over existing 6 -in. sanitary sewer line across Lots
9 and 10 and 11. (Public Works)
c. A portion of the proposed 35% drainage easement across Lot 10, has existing sewer
lines through it, label this easement as drainage and utility easement. (Public Works)
d. Continue same said easement, westerly to the west line of Lot 10. (Public Works)
e. Across the frontage of Lot 11, add an additional 15ft. utility easement to cover the
existing sewer line and manhole. (Public Works)
f. Please provide a minimum of 50ft. of frontage for Lot 11, at the proposed cul -de -sac.
(Public Works)
g. Please provide ownership information and verification for small plot of land labeled
"unplatted" directly behind Lot 2A, Block 62; is the property owned by the
owners /developers of the property being platted? Wichita County Appraisal District does
not indicate this parcel. Same issue exists with the small plot of land due east of Lot 8,
Block 63. (Public Works /Planning)
h. Show BLLs on lots 10 and 11 per S &DRs 4.3L. (Planning)
i. Move plat title to the top of the plat, per S &DRs 4.3B. (Planning)
j. Name 70 ft. right -of -way Maplewood Avenue. Street extensions or new streets in
alignment with existing streets shall continue with existing street names as planned or
proposed by the city's Regional (MPO) plan. (Planning)
k. The Planning Office will address each parcel once the plat is approved. (Planning)
REGULAR PLATS
■ Provide utility and drainage easements as required by utility companies and the Director
of Public Works.
■ Submit sewer, street, sidewalk and drainage plans to the Director of Public Works and
water plans to both the Fire Marshal and the Director of Public Works. Drainage plans
must be complete enough to include impact on surrounding property and include
detention facilities as required by Director of Public Works.
■ Coordinate street lighting plan and provide utility easements as required by the Director
of Aviation, Traffic and Transportation.
Note: Approval of a plat does not imply approval of development of property in violation
of the Zoning Ordinance.
P & Z COMMISSION PAGE 4 SEPTEMBER 11, 2013
1. Fountain Park, Section 813, Lot 9, Block 63 (September 2013)
a. All access to state roadways shall be approved by TxDOT. (TxDOT)
b. See comments for preliminary plat, same comments apply to this plat. (Public Works)
c. Please label the flood plain lines at the Northeast corner of plat to make map read
better. (Public Works)
d. There appears to be a stray line on the map right at the end of North Regent Drive,
please clarify. (Public Works)
e. Indicate North Regent Drive width and state "previously dedicated ". (Planning)
f. Indicate the 70ft. right -of -way shown as "herein dedicated" as Maplewood Avenue.
(Planning)
g. Define parcels labeled "unplatted ". (Planning)
h. The 70ft. Maplewood right -of -way is being dedicated on this plat will be subsequently
built. Since a street is being created, please change the planning signature certificate
from a minor plat signature certificate for the Director of Community Development to the
certificate for the P &Z Chairman and Secretary per Section 5.3 133 of the S &DRs.
(Planning)
i. The Director of Public Works signature certificate should indicate "plat' instead of
"replat'. (Planning)
j. Dead -end streets are not allowed except as a provision for future streets with a
temporary turnaround. A temporary turnaround should be indicated east of lot 9
property line. (Public Works /Planning)
k. The Planning Office will address each parcel once the plat is approved. (Planning)
I. Provide utility slips. (Planning)
2. Morton Farm Addition, Lot 1, Block 1 (September 2013)
a. All access to state roadways shall be approved by TxDOT. (TxDOT)
b. As this portion of the city develops, the Health Department will require subdivision plans
to review on -site sewage disposal, per TCEQ. (Health District)
c. The site is served by public water, however no public sewer is available; an approved
on -site septic system is required. (Public Works)
d. Please identify corners of record or other physical evidence used to establish boundary
per the Land Surveyor's Act. (Public Works)
e. Please change BLL to 25ft. (Planning)
f. Please show both sides of Reilly Road right -of -way and indicate the width at two variable
points. (Planning)
g. Show point of beginning and tie survey to a known location. (Planning)
h. Provide a signature certificate for the County Judge since a portion of the lot being
platted is outside city limits. (Planning)
i. Per S &DRs 5.3 136 please indicate the following ETJ statement on the plat:
"The area indicated on this plat as outside of the City limits of Wichita Falls on the date
of approval of this plat is within the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the City of Wichita Falls
and subject to annexation" (Planning)
j. Per section 4.3 F of the S &DRs, please put acreage on the plat. (Planning)
k. Per Section 4.3 G4, please show 4970 (the house) building footprint on the plat to allow
staff to ensure the proposed property line will not traverse the house building footprint
thus creating a nonconforming parcel. (Planning)
P & Z COMMISSION PAGE 5 SEPTEMBER 11, 2013
I. The dark dashed lines on the plat are confusing. Is the smaller existing unplatted parcel
Lot 2 or is this lot being replatted into one large lot. If the lines are existing survey lines
please show them differently or clearly define these lines with a legend. (Planning)
m. Please label city limits "in /out" on the location map. (Planning)
n. Show location with respect to the original corner of the original survey /point of
beginning. (Planning)
o. Provide utility slips. (Planning)
3. Seymour Hollow Addition, Lots 1 -B, 2, 3, 4.5, 6, 7, & 8, Block 1 (September 2013)
a. All access to state roadways shall be approved by TxDOT. (TxDOT)
b. Public sewer and water are available nearby to subdivision, extension of 8 -in. sewer and
8 -in. water will be required for development. (Public Works)
c. There appears to be an existing 1Oft. utility easement along a portion of the Arrowhead
frontage, ending at the east line of Lot 1A, Block 1. (Public Works)
d. Please dedicate a 1 Oft. utility easement for the remainder of the frontage down to Lot 8.
(Public Works)
e. If the existing 40ft. drainage easement on the Northerly side of Arrowhead is extended
south, a small portion of Lot 8 would appear to be affected. Please provide a drainage
easement for the affected portion of Lot 8 (note: drainage easement severely affects the
frontage of Lot 8). (Public Works)
f. Please provide proof of authorization to vacate existing 1Oft. Tesco easement. (Public
Works)
g. The portion of the property to be unplatted becomes a land- locked unplatted parcel,
which is not allowed under S &DRs, Sec. 3. (Public Works)
h. The most southerly property corner, described as 1/2" IRF (directly above the basis of
bearings) is missing a symbol. (Public Works)
i. Please add standard storm water ordinance compliance note to plat. (Public Works)
j. Please update Owner's certificate and Planning and Zoning Certificate to comply with
Subdivision and Development Regulations. (Public Works)
k. In the field notes for the portion to be unplatted, please change "Previously Dedicated
area" in the title to "Previously Platted Area ". (Public Works)
I. All signature certificates need to be revised in accordance to Section 5.3 B 1 -4 of the
S &DRs. (Planning)
m. Planning recommends changing the legal description to Lots 1 -B and 2 -8, Block 1.
(Planning)
n. Remove comma after Block 1; it appears to be a typo. (Planning)
o. Fix spacing errors in the subdivision title. (Planning)
p. Remove scale from the location /vicinity map. (Planning)
q. Indicate (via title or with a plat note) the proposed development is a townhome
development so it is clear the minimum lot frontage width requirement of 20ft. is met.
(Planning)
r. The .51 acre lot cannot be vacated on this plat. The act of vacation will create a
landlocked / nonconforming lot. Planning recommends the platting agent vacates the
entire existing plat if the current platted lot will revert back to a portion of a whole lot,
which will provide the necessary frontage. Then — following the vacation — the lot could
be platted as desired without creating a landlocked parcel. That is one of a few options
the city's development team feels would remedy the issue. Nevertheless, the plat
cannot be accepted and filed as submitted until this issue is remedied. (Planning)
P & Z COMMISSION PAGE 6 SEPTEMBER 11, 2013
4. Redemption Subdivision, Lot 1, Block 1 (September 2013)
a. All access to state roadways shall be approved by TxDOT. (TxDOT)
b. Although this property is in the middle of the city, the closest sewer line is 370ft. away.
Before development can commence, the city will require a site plan indicating the
intended use of the property to determine if lot will be large enough for on -site sewage
facility. (Public Works)
c. Site is served by public water but the site is not served by sewer; extension of an 8 -in.
sewer line is required. (Public Works)
d. Please show McKinley Rd. right -of -way on map portion of plat. (Public Works)
e. Please update the owner's certificate and Planning and Zoning Certificate to comply with
Subdivision and Development Regulations. (Public Works /Planning)
f. Please identify corners of record or other physical evidence used to establish boundary
per the Land Surveyor's Act. (Public Works)
g. All signature certificates need to be revised in accordance to Section 5.3 B 1 -4 of the
S &DRs. (Planning)
h. Please verify if in the first paragraph second line of the field notes should indicate
Wichita county deed records or plat records. (Planning)
i. Indicate Burkburnett Road and S.H. as the same text size on the plat and indicate the
right -of -way is "previously dedicated ". (Planning)
j. Old Burk Highway is required to be 60ft. A 5ft. right -of -way dedication will be required in
addition to the 1 Oft. utility easement being dedicated. (Planning).
k. Provide utility slips. (Planning)
5. Green Acres Subdivision, Lot 1, Block 1 (September 2013)
a. What is the intended use of this property? Will it be further divided? If there are plans to
use on -site sewage, the developer will need a permit from the Health Department.
(Health District)
b. Perhaps the City will want to make the existing access easement to the City's Plum
Creek Flood Control property a public access to the flood control property for park
purposes. The right -of -way access easement should be adequate for that purpose.
(Parks & Rec.)
c. The site is not served by public water or sewer, an approved on -site septic system, and
extension of an 8 -in. water line will be required to serve the property. (Public Works)
d. Please dedicate a 1Oft. utility easement along City View Dr. Please label City View Dr.
as "Previously Dedicated ". (Public Works)
e. The old city plat books indicate City View Dr. to be 60ft. of right -of -way; please clarify
70ft. right -of -way width. (Public Works)
f. Please update owner's certificates and Planning and Zoning certificate to comply with
Subdivision and Development Regulations. (Public Works)
g. All signature certificates need to be revised in accordance to Section 5.3 B 1 -4 of the
S &DRs. (Planning)
h. Revise floodplain information statement. The western portion of the property lies
partially in the floodplain. Show the floodplain in /out on the plat and update statement to
accurately reflect the portion of the property in the floodplain. (Planning)
i. Per Section 4.313 of the S &DRs the subdivision title shall be the largest text on the plat.
The Ed Wilson Survey A -591 text is too large. (Planning)
j. Show 25 ft. BLL along frontage. (Planning)
k. Indicate right -of -way as "previously dedicated" and the 5ft. dedication requirement as
"herein dedicated ". (Planning)
I. Indicate if adjacent properties are "platted ". (Planning)
P & Z COMMISSION PAGE 7 SEPTEMBER 11, 2013
m. Remove comma after Block 1. It appears to be a typo. (Planning)
n. Please correct spacing /spelling /punctuation errors in signature blocks /certificates.
(Planning)
o. If land will be subdivided further, Planning requests a preliminary plat of this property
also be submitted. (Planning)
p. Indicate Wichita Falls, TX. prior to Wichita County in the plat legal description as well as
in the field notes.
q. Provide utility slips. (Planning)
6. Vaquero Seymour Hwy. Tract A (September 2013)
a. All access to state roadways shall be approved by TxDOT. (TxDOT)
b. There are not any sewers services to this property and a house is already there. Are
they adding something? Or is the house going away? (Public Works)
c. The site is not served by the City of Wichita Falls public sewer or water, an approved
on -site septic system is required. (Public Works)
d. State and Regional MPO plans indicate this portion of Seymour Hwy. will be expanded
in the future. Therefore, a 10ft. right -of -way dedication along Seymour Hwy. is required.
(Public Works /Planning)
e. Please dedicate 1Oft. utility easements along Seymour Hwy. and Parker Ranch Rd.
frontages. (Public Works)
f. Please show city limit lines in the vicinity map. (Public Works /Planning)
g. In the title text of the plat, this would be an addition to Wichita County, not the City of
Wichita Falls (since the plat is outside city limits). Also please correct Tarrant County to
Wichita County. (Public Works /Planning)
h. Indicate right -of -way for Parker Ranch Road and Seymour Highway as "previously
dedicated ". (Planning)
i. Per Section 4.31 of the S &DRs, indicate the written scale as well as the graphic scale.
(Planning)
j. Move plat title to the top of the plat, per S &DRs 4.313. (Planning)
k. Provide a signature certificate for the County Judge since a portion of the lot being
platted is outside city limits. (Planning)
I. Per Section 4.36 of the S &DRs the subdivision title shall be the largest text on the plat.
The acreage on the platted parcel is too large. Please revise (Planning)
m. Please indicate Lot 1, Block 1 — not Block A or Tract A. All lots must have a lot and
block per S &DR provision 4.31K. (Planning)
n. Indicate 25ft. BLL on the plat. (Planning)
o. In addition to moving the title to the top of the page, please indicate the plat title as
follows:
FINAL PLAT
VAQUERO SEYMOUR HIGHWAY
(Put the original legal description in parentheses)
p. Per S &DRs 5.3 B6 please put the following ETJ statement on the plat:
"The area indicated on this plat as outside of the City limits of Wichita Falls on the date
of approval of this plat is within the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the City of Wichita Falls
and subject to annexation" (Planning)
P & Z COMMISSION PAGE 8 SEPTEMBER 11, 2013
CARPORTS
1. Case C 13 -31 — to be heard in the Regular Agenda
Carport in the front setback
4503 Allison Drive
2. Case C 13 -32
Carport in the front setback
3407 Arthur Street
Jackie Crain requested conditional use approval to construct a carport in the front setback at
his residence on Arthur Street. There are four (4) properties within the 200 foot notification area
with carports in the front setback.
Twenty -three (23) surrounding property owners were notified of this request. Three (3) or
13.04% replied in favor and none (0) were opposed.
3. Case C 13 -33
Carport in the front setback
2807 S. Bandera Drive
Raymond Taylor requested conditional use approval to construct a carport in the front setback
of his residence on S. Bandera Drive. There are five (5) properties within the 200 foot
notification area with carports in the front setback.
Eighteen (18) surrounding property owners were notified of this request. One (1) or 5.56%
replied in favor and none (0) were opposed.
4. Case C 13 -34
Carport in the front setback
4334 Featherstone Avenue
Greg and Mary Pidcock requested conditional use approval to construct a carport in the front
setback of their residence on Featherston. There are seven (7) properties within the 200 foot
notification area with carports in the front setback.
Twenty -nine (29) surrounding property owners were notified of this request. Seven (7) replied in
favor and none (0) were opposed.
Ms. Metty made a motion to approve the Consent Agenda and Mr. Kidwell seconded. The
motion carried.
V. REGULAR AGENDA
1. Case C 13 -31
Carport in the front setback
4503 Allison Drive
Donald Jumper requested conditional use approval to construct a carport in the front setback at
4503 Allison Drive. There are three (3) properties within the 200 foot notification area with
carports in the front setback.
Thirty (30) surrounding property owners were notified of this request. Six (6) responded in
favor; one (1) was opposed; and, one (1) responded as undecided or no opinion.
P & Z COMMISSION PAGE 9 SEPTEMBER 11, 2013
Ms. Coleman stated this case was brought down from the Consent Agenda because it received
a negative response from the mailing. It was noted the applicant had been present but left
before this case was presented.
Mr. Harmon made a motion to approve the carport; Mr. Browning seconded. The carport was
approved.
2. Case 13 -26
Carport in the exterior side setback
3600 Lesley Heights
Leroy Cowardin requested a carport to be constructed in the exterior side setback at his
residence on Lesley Heights. There are no (0) properties within the 200 foot notification area
with carports in the front or exterior side setbacks.
Twenty -seven (27) property owners were notified of this request. None (0) responded in favor;
three (3) responded as opposed; and, two (2) responded as undecided or no opinion.
Mr. Cowardin was present and available for questioning. There was no one present in the
audience with questions for the applicant. Chairman Taylor stated he drove by the applicant's
residence and now has concerns if his three vehicles are parked in the carport at the same
time, the view might be obstructed. Ms. Metty noted vehicles would be parked on the driveway
with or without a carport.
Chairman Taylor suggested attaching the carport with a hip into the house. He continued by
stating the Commission needs to consider the absence of carports in the immediate area. Mr.
Cowardin commented there are carports around the corner on Pawnee and on Del Rio. Ms.
Coleman showed a picture of the Pawnee carport as an example of a similar carport. It was
noted this carport is outside the 200' area.
Ms. Coleman stated his proposed carport would be one (1) foot off the property line or two (2)
feet from the sidewalk. The distance from the common property line will be three (3) feet. Mr.
Kidwell asked if the columns would be in the concrete portion of the driveway; Mr. Cowardin
replied affirmatively that four (4) of the six (6) columns would be in the concrete and would be
brick. He assured the Commission the cars would not be parked on the grass.
Mr. Harmon inquired about the deed restrictions to which Mr. Cowardin replied the restrictions
pertained to buildings with sides. The proposed carport would not have sides [walls]. Mr.
Harmon stated he checked with the developer of this subdivision, The Dennis Company; they
were not in favor of the construction of a metal carport in that neighborhood. Chairman Taylor
stated the Commission is neutral when it comes to deed restrictions. Mr. Harmon noted that, if
the carport received the Planning and Zoning Commission's approval, the applicant must also
abide by the deed restrictions. Mr. Hegglund stated, for the record, that the City Attorney's
office has looked at the deed restrictions and cannot make a recommendation regarding the
deed restrictions to this Commission or to the applicant. This situation is between the applicant
and his neighbors. Mr. Cowardin stated he thought the deed restrictions were talking about
buildings, carports were never mentioned.
To questioning Ms. Coleman responded the carport could be extended to the frontage property
line. It is the responsibility of the property owner and his contractor to determine the size and
dimensions of the carport. Mr. Browning noted it would be a 714 square foot carport whereas a
regular carport is between 450 — 500 square feet. Mr. Browning was concerned about the large
size of the structure not being attached to house. Mr. Cowardin stated he would be able to
P & Z COMMISSION PAGE 10 SEPTEMBER 11, 2013
attach the carport to the house and he would be agreeable to making changes to get it
approved.
Mr. Browning referred back to Chairman Taylor's suggestion about constructing the carport with
a hip roof with shingles attached to the house and stated, if that were done, this Commission
might have a different viewpoint. Chairman Taylor further suggested by connecting the carport
to the house with a hip roof, it would appear to be an extension of the house. He stated he felt
the neighbors had issues with a metal carport. From the street, the proposed carport will
protrude.
Mr. Hegglund noted one of the key issues of concern for this Commission should be with
neighborhood compatibility. For instance, if there were no carports on that street, once a
carport is allowed, it is more difficult to say no to future requests. The decision should be
partially based on what is compatible with the surrounding houses. Ms. Payne stated her
concerns were the size of the carport and the neighborhood compatibility; she felt the
applicant's carport would detract from the neighborhood aesthetics.
Ms. Metty stated this applicant does not have the luxury of building a rear access carport like so
many of his neighbors. There is no way he can get a vehicle through the entryway from the
alley to his backyard. Considering his neighbors have that option, Mr. Cowardin would also like
to protect his cars from the weather elements with a carport. The applicant has a unique
situation, he lives on a corner lot without rear access.
Ms. Metty asked the applicant if the vehicles would be side by side; the applicant replied
affirmatively. She reviewed with the applicant that he previously agreed to making the carport
aesthetically pleasing, attaching the carport to the roof of the home, having brick column pillars,
exceeding the width of the two car garage by parking the three vehicles side -by -side; Mr.
Cowardin agreed.
Chairman Taylor was concerned about the appeal to the neighborhood. If another carport had
been constructed closer to Mr. Cowardin's address, approval of this request would not be such
a concern.
Ms. Metty made a motion to put the decision to a vote. She noted there is no opposition present
to voice concerns. Mr. Kidwell stated most of the members would be pleased if the carport were
attached to the house; Ms. Metty stated Mr. Cowardin previously stated he would attach the
carport to the house and he was willing to do whatever it would take to get the Commission's
approval.
Chairman Taylor explained to the applicant, if the carport were constructed in a manner where it
tied into the roof, it would be aesthetically pleasing to the neighbors. Mr. Browning further
explained they were not talking about the metal carport tying into the face of the eaves of the
house. We are suggesting having a gabled end at the end of the carport by hipping into the
roof. Mr. Hegglund commented that this request should be made as a condition of approval.
Ms. Coleman stated the original application was to construct a flat roof carport attached to the
house. If there are going to be changes, she would like to request tabling this case. She would
like Mr. Cowardin to resubmit his application with a site plan illustrating the design of the carport
and the placement on his lot. Staff could then clarify the development regulations are met and
give the applicant the opportunity to work with a contractor. Chairman Taylor stated he felt this
would be a good alternative. Mr. Hegglund also suggested the applicant might want to talk with
an attorney regarding the deed restrictions.
P & Z COMMISSION PAGE 11 SEPTEMBER 11, 2013
Ms. Metty made a motion to approve this carport; Mr. Browning seconded [since this case was
tabled, the original motion is pending and will be taken up at a future meeting].
Ms. Metty made a motion to table this carport request; Mr. Browning seconded. The motion
carried.
3. Case C 13 -36
Request to construct a 195 foot communications tower in a Light Industrial
District
106 Michigan Avenue
Clear Talk requested a conditional use permit to construct a 195 foot tall, self- supporting
communication tower on Michigan Avenue. They are requesting the tower in order to provide
better wireless service to the Wichita Falls community in addition to having other businesses
locate equipment on this tower.
The proposed tower will be located on a new concrete foundation, four feet by eight feet with a
steel equipment platform and a 12 foot swinging lockable entry gate. This proposed tower will
be located 113 feet from the salvage company structure at 105 Michigan and 280 feet from the
warehouse structure at 206 Michigan.
Section 5910 A of the Zoning Ordinance states a communications tower should be setback
from the right -of -way and adjacent properties equivalent to the height of the tower.
Consideration toward reducing the setback may require specifications as to the engineered fall
characteristics of a tower and the nature of the neighboring land uses.
The applicants have received a preliminary screening from the Department of Defense (DOD).
Their preliminary screening tool stated the preliminary review of the proposed tower does not
return any likely impacts to military airspace. However, the preliminary review does not preclude
official FAS processes. Likewise, since the proposed structure lies in an approach /departure
zone for SAFB/Wichita Falls Regional Airport, planning staff consulted a Terminal Instrument
Procedures Manager at SAFB. He also determined the preliminary evaluation, based on the
proposed location of the tower, shows no impact to 80 FTW operations. However, the applicant
of the proposed construction will need to submit a notice of construction to the FAA to receive
an official impact determination.
Due to the preliminary DoD /FAA and SAFB review, staff conditionally recommends approval of
this request pending the revised specification of the engineered fall characteristics for the
proposed cell tower as required by Section 5910 A of the Zoning Ordinance. Additionally these
development requirements must also be met:
1. An FAA finding showing the tower will not be a hazard to airport operations;
2. Any required lighting or other safety measures shall be installed; and
3. The property must be platted prior to the issuance of a building permit.
A representative of Clear Talk, Keith Fisher, Site Development Manager of Flat Wire, was
introduced by Ms. Coleman. He stated this is a self- supporting tower which is stronger than a
monopole tower. If one should come down, it would be caused by compression loading and it
would collapse in a section and fall within its original footprint. He stated Clear Talk is
purchasing the tract of land for this tower location.
Chairman Taylor asked for documentation of the weight this tower can support and
documentation of the fall characteristics. Mr. Fisher stated he submitted a fall letter with the
application. Ms. Payne asked if a copy of the letter was available. Ms. Coleman stated the
P & Z COMMISSION PAGE 12 SEPTEMBER 11, 2013
documentation submitted with the application concerned the Amarillo tower specifications which
is a similar tower. Staff has requested the specific information for Wichita Falls. Mr. Fischer
referenced a tower in Jackson, TN that was standing after an F4 tornado came through that
area. These towers are engineered to fall down on themselves from a breaking point. Mr.
Fischer stated they have received a preliminary approval from the FAA; there are not any
issues and the tower would not cause any flight risks. Regarding the request for specific
information, Mr. Fischer explained the information is not available until the tower is ordered.
Prior to the issuance of the building permit, the exact information for this tower would be
submitted.
Ms. Metty stated she was previously employed with Inoperable Communications for the
Department of Homeland Security and has knowledge of tower structures. Mr. Fishcer stated
there is a new First Responder network and, in other Texas cities, they have been offering free
space on their towers. If approved, he would make the same offer with Wichita Falls. Mr.
Fischer showed slides of the future location on Michigan Avenue; he explained the warehouse
located on the property would be renovated to be used for equipment storage for towers in the
surrounding areas.
Ms. Payne asked about the safety of the nearby Community Healthcare Center; Mr. Fischer
replied it would fall down straight and not affect them.
Ms. Metty inquired about lighting for this tower regarding the safety of the air ambulance
helicopter. This helicopter lands in sites where there is an emergency and not always at the pad
by the hospital. She requested lighting measures be taken for the concern and safety of our air
traffic. Mr. Fischer explained that a tower over 200 feet is required to have lighting; Ms. Metty
stated she would like the lighting request to be a condition of approval for this case. Mr. Fischer
stated the tower could possibly be taller since lighting will be required.
Ms. Metty made a motion to place a condition of approval on this tower request that the tower
will be required to have lighting; Mr. Kidwell seconded. The motion carried.
Mr. Browning made a motion to approve this tower request; Ms. Metty made the second. The
motion carried.
4. Case R 13 -03
Request to rezone four (4) lots from Limited Commercial (LC) to General
Commercial (GC) to establish an automobile sales lot
1530, 1532 & 1534 Kell Blvd. and 1707 Grace Street
John Daugherty, representing the owner, requested a rezoning for four lots to establish an
automobile sales business at the northeast corner of Kell Blvd. and Grace St. This proposed
land use would be more intense than the current LC zoning district allows and would change
the neighborhood characteristics.
Ms. Coleman gave a brief history of past rezoning efforts for these lots and the immediate
surrounding area.
Ms. Coleman stated staff considered the changing development patterns as well as the
opportunities available for this area then decided to take a neutral position instead of making a
recommendation. If the Commission chooses to recommend approval, staff suggested the
property should be adequately screened and lighting should be directed away from adjacent
P & Z COMMISSION PAGE 13 SEPTEMBER 11, 2013
residences. In addition, all access points must be approved by TxDOT. TxDOT's response to
this request stated the overpass has decreased traffic volumes in this area; however, they have
concerns regarding a commercial driveway due to the proximity of streets and the curvature of
the transition section between Holliday and the frontage road of Kell Freeway. TxDOT has
stated they would deny a permit requesting access from Kell Blvd. for safety concerns. Access
might be available from Grace Street if permitted by the City.
Martin Litteken, representing the owner, stated the current Limited Commercial zone restricts
the size of a building to 1,200 square feet which severely limits the use of this property. He
stated these properties would be more developable if the zoning were General Commercial as
they have been Limited Commercial since 1985 when the City adopted zoning. Mr. Litteken
referenced the site plan showing the 30 ft. buffer to the north where the residences are located.
There would also be a six ft. stockade fence on the north side. If approved, these properties
would be a continuation of the General Commercial zone from the northeast corner.
Chairman Taylor closed the public comment session and opened up the discussion for the
Commission members.
Ms. Payne stated she had an issue with some of the General Commercial uses that could
possibly locate on these properties in the future. She expressed concern there would be no
control over some of the objectionable [in her opinion] GC permitted uses that might want to
locate on these properties. Ms. Metty stated the property is currently stagnant and should be
utilized. Ms. Payne asked if there were waivers available for limiting the building size in LC
zoning. Ms. Coleman replied there are uses in LC zoning that require conditional use approval
but land uses are not waivered or conditioned. Uses are either permitted, require conditional
use approval, or not permitted.
Mr. Browning stated the access to this property would only be from Grace St. according to the
TxDOT response. Mr. Litteken explained the permit from TxDOT would determine the access
points.
Chairman Taylor stated he felt this use would be a positive alternative to vacant land. Mr.
Kidwell echoed that remark by stating this would be a good use for the property.
Mr. Browning made a motion to recommend approval of the rezoning request to City Council;
Mr. Harmon seconded. The vote was unanimously in favor.
VI. OTHER BUSINESS
City Council Update
No items pertaining to this Commission were submitted to Council in the last month.
VII. ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 3:04 p.m.
P & Z COMMISSION PAGE 14
rjlz��
. C. Taylor, Chai
ATTEST:
SEPTEMBER 11, 2013
/d Y- /--�
Date
1, w- G
iqu oleman, Dept. of Community Development bate